Video: Liebs says McCain did not support amnesty for illegal aliens

posted at 11:20 am on January 5, 2008 by Bryan

Yes, Joe-mentum, he did, consistently from at least 2003 through the last fight over the issue in 2007. There is no denying this and it doesn’t serve the voters or the truth to pretend that it’s not true. Stop insulting our intelligence.

But Lieberman goes farther than just pretending that McCain didn’t support amnesty, as McCain himself pretended on December 30. He says that to say that McCain did support amnesty is a lie.

“McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: “Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.” The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: “I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.”

I count twice in that paragraph that McCain used the word — amnesty — to describe the thing he favored — amnesty. So who’s the liar?

Of course, even if McCain can somehow prove that he didn’t say what the Citizen quoted him as saying, it’s beyond clear that what he pushed via back room deals in 2006 and again in 2007 was an amnesty. They didn’t call it an amnesty, but an amnesty was what it was.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

It’s not gibberish, it’s the truth. Not too many Americans citizen can say their ancestors have lived here for centuries.

It’s not relevant. We are a nation of laws. Whether you are a 1st generation or a 10th generation American, we exist by the consent of the governed to operate under common laws. What advocates of ill imm don’t understand is that there is identity and value there that is very deep.

terryannonline, I believe you. I merely saying that when you boil down all the rhetoric and emotion of the issue there are certain fundamentals that makes us who we are. Once we change or circumvent those, then the bell rings for us. (To be clear, not all change is bad – we have provisions for it – but it must come by a certain process that ensures the will/assent of the people)

Terryann, you’re being disingenuous. You claimed that you aren’t interested in altering this nation’s custom, convention and continuity. I point out where you are, and you come back with this?

It’s not in the Constitution that the president has to have ancestry in Western civilization. Should we start having blood test to make sure that everyone elected has no once of blood from outside Western Europe?

To make this clearer, the discussion is about the importance of maintaining the common heritage threads that made this nation what it is, not clinging to constitutionality as a reason or means to sever them. You don’t get it, and perhaps because of latent ethnocentrism you can’t. If we start electing presidents who come from heritage traditions outside our national one, then we’re pretty much finished as a cohesive society and culture. Not that it would bother you, obviously.

It’s weird to dialog with people who can’t even grasp their own ulterior motives.

Not too many Americans citizen can say their ancestors have lived here for centuries.

…but actually, considering that immigrants (there were no immigrants before the 1780s) have never made up even 15% of our population, there remains a strong plurality of Americans who have ancestors that were here at the time of the founding.

The casting off of my ancestors through this insipid “nation of immigrants” nonsense (from a book by JFK in the 1950s), is just another progressive tool to distract people from learning anything useful from this nation’s proper heritage past.

It’s sad that there exists an almost accidental conspiracy of political correctness, multicultualism and diversity that has served to discourage some Americans from teaching their kids about their heritage and ancestral achievements, so this generation of American youth is the most clueless about its past of any. I even see it in my family, but certainly not in my home. It’s shameful that we have invited others into our midst whose children actually believe that there aren’t many descendants of the founding generations left, when mathematically such claims are absurd.

The nation of immigrants mantra is true so far as the useful fictions of ideology go if you decide to simply accept it, as many have. But your believing the narrative still does not make it factual, nor will it bring it closer to being true.

And to many of us who know how our ancestors would have objected to being referred to as “immigrants,” casting us as a nation of them will always remain an insult.

If we start electing presidents who come from heritage traditions outside our national one, then we’re pretty much finished as a cohesive society and culture.

kdaddy,

I don’t know what else to say to you but that I love everything about America including our customs and our culture. I love it is so much that I keep up with our political process in almost a daily basis. I’m so very fortunate to be born in this country. I don’t ever doubt that. I would never support anything I feel undermines
our country. That’s all I can say.

Arizona Republic 10-3-99
“In recent years, he’s become a champion of campaign-finance reform. More than a decade ago, he took free trips to the Bahamas with savings and loan tycoon Charles Keating. He continues to take big money from interests before his committees.”

“He’s amassed a rogues’ gallery of troublemaking former pals – Keating, Gary Hart, John Tower, Fife Symington, Duke Tully – who hardly square with his ambitions as a reformer.”

“He prides himself on his personal integrity yet admits he wasn’t faithful to his first wife, Carol, who was injured in a horrific car accident while McCain was in Vietnam.”

“While at the Naval Academy, McCain let some subjects slide, spending his time reading history and literature and, of course, howling at the moon. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class.”

Tell me again..why are people even thinking about nominating Mccain? Who in their right minds will vote for him? Didn’t we find out that 80% of Americans do not want amnesty for illegal aliens…Mccain is a disgrace and if nominated will lose badly!

Let’s get something straight here. No one here is mad at McCain for “lying” and please, I think it’s called spin because he knows how important this issue is to people.

What you are mad about is his actual position. That’s it. I understand it too, But he believes what he believes. You don’t like what he believes, but he obviously is only going to back down from it to a certain extent. Take it or leave it.

I know most of you will leave it. And that is your right. But like I am told ad nauseum regarding the abortion issue, there are other issues here. You guys were ready to forgive Rudy on everything encluding McCain/Feingold, which he supported (along with your “pure” Fred), as long as he was “right on the war on terror.” Yet, McCain, who is more than right on the world on terror, gets no such break from you guys.

Maybe Thompson isn’t making a big deal out of the amnesty thing because in 1997 he voted for amnesty for illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba.

I mean what difference does it make where they come from, right? Amnesty is Amnesy and illegal is illegal.

My point is..if you want purity, go watch “Snow White” but if you want a good man who will be a great President and will beat the most chilling Democrat to run EVER, then you might want to forgive McCain.